JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - The petition is directed against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 21-2-1972 as well as against order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 7-9-1972 dismissing the petitioners' objection. 2. The land in dispute consists of plots no. 1210 of Khata no. 819 of Village Hariharpur tahsil Bansgaon, district Gorakhpur. During the consolidation operations, the name of Mohar Ali and Zahoori were recorded in the basic year over the plot in dispute. Admittedly, Zahoori died. Dhanai petitioner filed an objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Act, claiming Sirdari rights over the plots in dispute on the basis of continued possession for a period or more than six years. Mohar Alt contested the petitioner's objection and asserted that the petitioner was his brother-in-law and that his possession over the plots in dispute was permissive in nature. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 17-11-1971 allowed the petitioner's objection and declared him to be Sirdar of the plots in dispute. On appeal, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) set aside the Order of the Consolidation Officer on the finding that the entries relating to the petitioner's possession in the village record were not made in accordance with the provisions of the Land Records Manual as P.A. 10 Slip were not counter-signed by Mohar Ali who was recorded as tenant-in-chief, He further recorded a finding that the petitioners' possession was permissive in nature, being a near relation of Mohar Ali they had been permitted to cultivate the field on his behalf. The petitioner filed a revision application but that failed and the Deputy Director of Consolidation affirmed the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by his order dated 7-9-1972- Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in view of the entries in the village papers the petitioner's possession over the plot in dispute for more than six years was proved and as such the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation both committed error in rejecting the petitioner's claim. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in view of the entries in the village papers the petitioner's possession over the plot in dispute for more than six years was proved and as such the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation both committed error in rejecting the petitioner's claim. Admittedly, the petitioner was recorded in possession over the plots in dispute for a period of more than six years but the question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioners possession permissive or adverse in nature. Both the consolidation authorities, namely, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have recorded a finding that the petitioner's possession was permissive in nature. This finding was recorded on appreciation of the evidence on record. The finding does not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction. 4. Both the authorities have further recorded a finding that the entries contained in the village records relating to the petitioner's adverse possession over the plot in dispute were not made in accordance with provisions of the Land Records Manual as P.A. 10 Slips, were not served on the tenant-in-chief or countersigned by him. If the entries relating to the petitioner's adverse possession were not in accordance with the provisions of law those entries could not confer any right on the petitioner. Moreover, both the authorities have believed the statement of Mohar Ali made on oath that the petitioner was his brother-in-law and that he had allowed him to cultivate the land, (possession) was not adverse. There is no error in the finding recorded by the two authorities warranting interference by the court under Article 226 of tho Constitution. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner then urged that when arguments were almost over before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). An affidavit was filed by Mohar Ali stating that the petitioner was his brother-in-law and that affidavit was accepted by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) even though no opportunity to rebut the same was given to the petitioner. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation both have placed reliance on the said affidavit in rejecting the petitioner's claim even though the petitioner was not given any opportunity to rebut the same. I find no merit in the contention. Firstly in his affidavit. Mohar Ali stated that the petitioner was his Bahnoi. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation both have placed reliance on the said affidavit in rejecting the petitioner's claim even though the petitioner was not given any opportunity to rebut the same. I find no merit in the contention. Firstly in his affidavit. Mohar Ali stated that the petitioner was his Bahnoi. Even if that evidence is discarded there is other evidence on the record Annexure 3 is the copy of the Settlement of Mohar Ali recorded before the Consolidation Officer. In that Statement Mohar Ali clearly stated that the petitioner was his brother-in-law (Bahnoi) and that he had allowed him to cultivate the land in dispute on his behalf. In this deposition made before the Consolidation Officer the petitioner had denied Mohar Ali's statement and had asserted that he was not related to Mohar Ali. In this view of the matter the admission of affidavit of Mohar Ali by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) does not make any difference. But even assuming that the petitioner was entitled to file a counter affidavit fie had ample opportunity to do so before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). He did not file any application seeking time for filing a Counter-Affidavit before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). He had again given another opportunity to file counter affidavit before the Deputy Director in revision. But even at that stage he did not file any counter affidavit or make any effort to file any counter affidavit to controvert the affidavit of Mohar Ali. These facts indicate that the petitioner was not interested in filing any counter affidavit, and probably so because he has already denied his relationship with Mohar Ali in his statement on oath before the Consolidation Officer, The acceptance of the affidavit of Mohar Ali by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) did not at all materially affect the case and no prejudice was caused the to petitioner. 6. In view of the above discussion. I find no error of law in the two orders of the consolidation authorities. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.